Point-Counterpoint: Should NCAA Athletes Be Penalized for Reselling Sneakers?

A sneakerhead and a former Division 1 athlete discuss college sports' most heated debate.

By
Jonathan Evans and Madison Vain

Aug 8, 2018

Getty Imagestarheelfootball/Instagram

The debate over whether college athletes should be paid is a long and storied one. Considering the amount of revenue these student athletes are responsible for, it's pretty wild that they don't see a dime of it in regard to actual paper money. But there are perks to being a Division 1 athlete beyond skipping the line at bars and everyone in town knowing your name—you also get a fair amount of swag.

So, what happens when a student decides he or she isn't planning on putting said swag to use? Should they be able to sell it to make up for what they aren't earning in actual income? This nuanced portion of the ongoing discussion resurfaced Tuesday when it was reported that about 13 UNC football players are being suspended for selling Air Jordans they were given as part of the university's Jordan sponsorship.

The suspension is apparently justified by a rule that claims these athletes aren't permitted to sell memorabilia—but can a retro basketball sneaker really be considered "memorabilia" for a college football player? Do these rules need to be updated to reflect the fact that these kids are getting showered with gifts they may or may not ever put to use, all while the paychecks for their value to the university remain non-existent?

Who better than a sneakerhead and a former D1 athlete to debate it?

Jonathan Evans (senior style editor): So yesterday, while trolling around the internet for general style-related updates, I came across this story about UNC football players being suspended for reselling Air Jordans. Football players being punished for selling basketball sneakers? That seems a bit much, no?

Madison, you were a D1 athlete at Wake Forest. I, on the other hand, attended a Tulane football game exactly once, and that’s just because Outkast was playing the halftime show as part of a (truly bizarre) MTV shoot. You must know more about this than me. Can you help me understand?

Madison Vain (Snapchat editor): I would like to start by saying, I am extremely jealous of that halftime performance and now find myself crying out and shaking my fist in the air at whoever failed to book something similar at my alma mater. But to get to the matter at hand, I totally get your reaction. It does seem like a bit much, especially at first glance. Having signed the same contract with the NCAA not (so) long ago—and even knowing full well that I’m about to sound like a middle school principal—I have to stand up for the governing body on the fact that that is expressly and completely against the rules, rules that athletes get warned about a lot as thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of gear is being given out. I think what really you, and a lot of people on the Internet, today, are taking issue with is the rule itself?

JE: That’s a fair assessment. I’m not annoyed that they enforced the rule so much as I am that the rule itself exists at all. I already think it’s bonkers that “student athletes” aren’t allowed to be paid for their actual performances or any marketing of their likenesses. Why does that tight-fistedness need to be compounded by not letting these kids flip some sneakers? The resale market is booming! And also: These were basketball shoes. Not just that: They were in all likelihood, going by the fact that the initial incident was reported in January, the UNC Air Jordan 3s that released that same month:

What if these guys just plain aren’t AJ3 fans? (I don’t understand how someone couldn’t be, but maybe they’re saving room for their collection of 1s, 4s, and 7s?) What if they just need a little extra scratch? These don’t have any value whatsoever on the football field, but player-exclusive shoes are valuable to collectors. What’s the harm, to the NCAA, of them being sold?

MV: I am prepared to agree with you fully on how pointless these shoes are in terms of aiding football performance. In fact, when I first read the headlines, I assumed the players were basketball players, given the merch. Why does the football team need these Jordans? They don’t. And as a former UNC rival, I can even agree with you on the fact that maybe the players aren’t fans of the kicks—just look at all that Tarheel blue accent! It’s blinding!

His Airness at UNC.

Getty ImagesFocus On Sport

As for the potential that they just needed a little extra scratch? Yep, you’ve got me there as well. It’s a known fact that even for full-scholarship athletes, it still costs money to attend college. And given the inability for this population to get a paying job during the school year—you know, because they’re at practice, traveling to games, at workouts, studying film, getting rehab for injuries, or doing any of the zillion other required activities—I get that these boys have limited opportunities for income and this was, potentially, a very quick fix. The NCAA has a lot of work to do when it comes to figuring out if there is a way to responsibility compensate athletes. I’m a believer that a solution can be found. Unfortunately, if you look at the letters of intent offered to each of those young men, you’ll also find their signature, which means not selling that equipment is something they literally agreed to.

It’s probably worth pointing out that there is an expiration date on this binding agreement. The day you leave school, you can sell anything they ever gave you. It doesn’t fix the need for short-term cash, but does that help at all with your feelings on the matter?

JE: Playing the sneaker resale game is tough. Shoes that are selling for many times their retail price today might drop significantly in a week or a month—never mind a year or two. So maybe they were nervous about diminishing returns. Or, because these are still young men and young men are impulsive, maybe they just wanted to flip the shoes and didn’t even consider the consequences. Either way. But I will grant that they could have just held onto their assets, as it were. With the kind of scarcity you see in player exclusives, they’d probably still be worth something by the time it was technically allowed.

"There's an expiration date on this binding agreement. The day you leave school, you can sell anything they ever gave you."

Isn’t that part of what makes the “none of this counts the day you leave school” attitude here even more ridiculous? If these guys are going to sell, they’re going to sell. Maybe the powers that be could introduce a caveat to the ban on selling memorabilia: If it’s non-essential apparel or footwear—stuff you don’t need to play—and it doesn’t have your name on it, it’s fair game for flippage. That means no actual athletic gear and nothing directly tied to a specific player hits the secondary market. No harm, no foul, right?

MV: I’m not so sure. There are statute of limitations on every contract. That is, literally, the point of a contract: to buy an agreement of behaviors for a certain amount of time for a certain reward, right? In this case, that reward is one of the best educations in the country and the opportunity to perform on a platform that will, in some cases, earn you the attention of NFL scouts, and in others, just make you the coolest guy in the room for like the next decade. I’ve got a laundry list of things I’d change about the NCAA—many of them bothered me when I played and many of them make be sympathetic to this group of guys working the secondary sneaker market—but none of them make me think this punishment is outta line. Sorry, boys.

I get where you’re coming from with the selling of non-essentials, but don’t you think Nike will catch wind of this? Suddenly those non-essentials are getting handed out a lot less liberally. As someone who still hoards their memorabilia, I’m not so sure that would work out in favor of the athletes, in the long run.

Nike Air Jordan brand shoes with the Jumpman logo worn by Joel Berry II #2 of the North Carolina Tar Heels during a game against the Pittsburgh Panthers on February 03, 2018.

Getty Images

JE: I suppose Jordan (and Nike, and Adidas, and everyone else) might wind up treating players a little less generously if everything gets flipped. I would hope they wouldn’t, but if the players aren’t wearing the non-game shoes, that wouldn’t exactly boost their value. So, OK, I can concede the possibility, should the brands’ largesse run dry. But seeing as a lot of these guys don’t have the kind of crazy visibility that means they’d be photographed in the exclusive shoes all the time, I’m not sure that’d happen. Still, who can truly fathom the sneaker executive’s mind, in a grand philosophical sense.

Speaking of the grand philosophical sense: These guys shouldn’t have to flip shoes. In fact, considering the money that NCAA “student athletes” bring into their respective institutions, I kinda feel like they should be so generously compensated that the idea of making a few bucks on the side via a (definitely) rule-breaking and (possibly) ethically questionable sneaker flip wouldn’t even enter their heads. It’s not the shoes, it’s the system (mannnnn). So, even if we can’t agree on whether the shoes should be on the market, can we agree that there should be no need for the players to put them there?

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.